...
首页> 外文期刊>The Journal of Graduate Medical Education >Opening the “Black Box” of GME Costs and Benefits: A Conceptual Model and a Call for Systematic Studies
【24h】

Opening the “Black Box” of GME Costs and Benefits: A Conceptual Model and a Call for Systematic Studies

机译:打开GME成本和收益的“黑匣子”:概念模型和系统研究的呼唤

获取原文
           

摘要

At the heart of the current debate on financing graduate medical education (GME) is a seemingly simple question, how much does it cost hospitals and other health care providers to participate in GME? The answer has important implications for both the number and types of residency programs offered and the level of federal support needed to meet future physician workforce needs. Yet the question itself is not well understood, and information needed to answer it is lacking. Despite the importance that the net costs of operating individual residency training programs might have for the decisions sponsoring institutions make about operating these programs, the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) recent report, Graduate Medical Education That Meets the Nation's Health Care Needs, concludes that there is little understanding of the bottom-line financial impact of programs in various specialities, and that the costs and benefits of providing resident education are a “black box.”1 As a step toward opening up this “black box,” the IOM report recommended data collection and detailed reporting on the use of Medicare GME funds.1;Medicare Funding for GME Medicare is the primary source of federal support for GME. Medicare funding flows to teaching hospitals through direct GME (DGME) payments for the direct costs of operating residency training programs (such as resident salaries, teaching physician compensation, and costs of maintaining the GME office), and through indirect medical education (IME) payments for additional costs of teaching hospitals that are not otherwise captured by the prospective payment system for inpatient services.2 Both DGME and IME payments are formula-driven and do not account for any potential differences in the financial impact of different specialty programs on teaching hospitals. A key policy issue is whether Medicare support for GME should be restructured to differentiate between programs that are less costly to operate, or are self-sustaining, and those that are more costly.2,3 Presently, there are insufficient studies documenting the net costs of operating different types of residency training programs, and we lack the cost information to accurately target federal residency training support to achieve physician workforce objectives. Currently there is little empirical data to inform the debate over the appropriate level of federal funding, how it is allocated across specialties, and how funds are distributed. The IOM report envisions that a new GME policy council, housed within the US Department of Health and Human Services, would be responsible for prioritizing the GME fund allocations across identified domains, such as specialty and subspecialty programs, geographic areas, and types of sponsoring institutions.1 This requires empirical data on actual costs to structure equitable payments and provide incentives for programs that meet future physician workforce needs. In this issue of the Journal of Graduate Medical Education, a study by Iannuzzi et al4 is an important contribution to the question of how an internal medicine residency program affects a hospital system's costs of caring for inpatients. Findings for the resident-hospitalist team relative to the midlevel practitioner-hospitalist team performance on length of stay and direct patient care costs are notable and should encourage other teaching hospitals to undertake similar analyses. However, such analyses address just 1, albeit important, aspect of the financial impact question. Perhaps most important for internal residency programs, an assessment of financial impact should include consideration of the impact that residents have on attending physician productivity and clinical revenues, particularly in ambulatory clinics. In addition to the added benefits arising from Medicare support of resident education, which the authors discussed, there are indirect benefits that are more difficult to measure but which are important to the overall economics of operati
机译:当前关于资助研究生医学教育(GME)的辩论的核心是一个看似简单的问题,医院和其他医疗保健提供者参与GME的费用是多少?答案对所提供的居住计划的数量和类型以及满足未来医师劳动力需求所需的联邦支持水平都具有重要意义。然而,这个问题本身并没有得到很好的理解,并且缺少回答该问题所需的信息。尽管开展个人居住权培训计划的净成本对于发起机构做出实施这些计划的决策可能具有重要性,但医学研究所(IOM)最近的报告《满足国家医疗保健需求的研究生医学教育》得出的结论是IOM报告建议,对于各个专业计划对底线财务的影响了解甚少,而提供居民教育的成本和收益却是一个“黑匣子”。1作为迈向开放“黑匣子”的一步,IOM报告建议有关Medicare GME资金使用情况的数据收集和详细报告。1; GME的Medicare资金Medicare是联邦政府对GME的主要支持来源。 Medicare的资金通过直接GME(DGME)付款流向教学医院,以支付运营住院医师培训计划的直接费用(例如居民工资,教学医师薪酬和GME办公室维护费用),以及通过间接医学教育(IME)付款2 DGME和IME的付款都是公式驱动的,并且不考虑不同专业计划对教学医院的财务影响的任何潜在差异。一个关键的政策问题是,是否应该重组对GME的医疗保险支持,以区分运营成本较低,自我维持的计划和成本较高的计划。2,3目前,没有足够的研究记录净成本运营不同类型的住院医师培训计划,并且我们缺乏准确定位联邦住院医师培训支持以实现医师劳动力目标的费用信息。目前,很少有经验数据可以为有关联邦资金的适当水平,如何在各个专业之间分配资金以及如何分配资金提供辩论信息。 IOM报告设想,美国卫生与公共服务部内部将成立一个新的GME政策委员会,负责在确定的领域(如专业和亚专业计划,地理区域和发起机构的类型)中对GME资金分配进行优先排序。 .1这就需要有关实际成本的经验数据,以构成公平的支付,并为满足未来医师劳动力需求的计划提供激励。在本期《研究生医学教育杂志》上,Iannuzzi等人的研究[4]对内部药物住院计划如何影响医院系统的住院费用产生了重要贡献。与住院医师和中层医院住院医师团队在住院时间和直接患者护理费用方面的表现相比,住院医师团队的研究结果值得注意,应该鼓励其他教学医院进行类似的分析。但是,这样的分析仅解决财务影响问题中的一个重要方面,尽管很重要。对于内部居住计划而言,也许最重要的是,对财务影响的评估应包括考虑居民对主治医师生产率和临床收入(特别是在门诊诊所)的影响。作者讨论了医疗保险支持居民教育所带来的额外收益,此外还有间接收益,这些收益更难衡量,但对运营的整体经济性很重要。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号